Republican Party on the Decline?

[bhsmte]

Well, at least it would have preserved marriage in its traditional form, you know, like it has been since the beginning. It would define something in a legal way that has been understood for thousands of years. Right now, it's just being perverted.

Good thing they didn't think about preserving in regards to the 13th amendment.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Good thing they didn't think about preserving in regards to the 13th amendment.

You know that those same people would have passed a constitutional amendment on this issue, if they had known something like this was going to happen.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Well, at least it would have preserved marriage in its traditional form, you know, like it has been since the beginning. It would define something in a legal way that has been understood for thousands of years. Right now, it's just being perverted.

In early cultures, men often had many wives. What, then, is the traditional form and what is the perversion?

 

[GarfieldJL]

In early cultures, men often had many wives. What, then, is the traditional form and what is the perversion?

Weren't women considered to be more like property in those cultures?

Homosexual relations certainly involved that, typically the partner was a slave.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Weren't women considered to be more like property in those cultures?

Yep.

 

[Aldebaran]

In early cultures, men often had many wives. What, then, is the traditional form and what is the perversion?

At least they were wives, rather than fellow dudes. Have you seen any instance in the bible where a guy had a harem of men?

 

[Joykins]

Comment, I don't understand why any political party would try to appeal to an extreme minority with anything. It isn't as if they will vote for the opposing party, at worst they will try to run as a third party candidate, and we all know that doesn't work out for the extreme sides.

Third party candidates tend to be spoilers by splitting the "conservative" vote.

 

[HorsieJuice]

At least they were wives, rather than fellow dudes. Have you seen any instance in the bible where a guy had a harem of men?

 

[Aldebaran]

Did they have those things in biblical times???

 

[HorsieJuice]

Did they have those things in biblical times???

Goalposts? Sure. People have been playing competitive sports for millenia.

 

[Aldebaran]

Goalposts? Sure. People have been playing competitive sports for millenia.

Not like the one in the picture you posted a link to.

 

[A2SG]

Anyone, such as the President, or Dianne Feinstein, who claims that the Constitution is "negative" and needs to be changed, and that the second amendment is something they'd like to see repealed (and have introduced bills to accomplish this), is someone who is assaulting the constitution.

No, it isn't.

See, the Constitution isn't, and has never been, set in stone. It changes all the time, sometimes directly reversing itself (see the 21st and 18th Amendments).

So what you have there is simply that you disagree with someone else's views on the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

-- A2SG, be willing to bet there's one or two things in the Constitution you, yourself, wouldn't mind being changed....

 

[Aldebaran]

No, it isn't.

See, the Constitution isn't, and has never been, set in stone. It changes all the time, sometimes directly reversing itself (see the 21st and 18th Amendments).

So what you have there is simply that you disagree with someone else's views on the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

-- A2SG, be willing to bet there's one or two things in the Constitution you, yourself, wouldn't mind being changed....

At least it takes a vast majority to make changes to it. One thing we don't need is for some emotionally charged event to take place and sway the emotions of enough people to make foolish changes to the foundation of our country's laws. It's bad enough we gave up so much freedom after 9/11 for the "Patriot Act" because so many people were swayed by fear so soon after the event.

 

[A2SG]

At least it takes a vast majority to make changes to it. One thing we don't need is for some emotionally charged event to take place and sway the emotions of enough people to make foolish changes to the foundation of our country's laws. It's bad enough we gave up so much freedom after 9/11 for the "Patriot Act" because so many people were swayed by fear so soon after the event.

If you're saying the Patriot act was unconstitutional, I'd agree. But enacting unconstitutional laws, even those not ruled as such by the SCOTUS, isn't an "assault" on the Constitution.

When people use language like that, talking of "assaulting the Constitution" and such, all it means is that they disagree with some change to it or amendment someone proposes for it. That's it.

No one's assaulting the Constitution.

-- A2SG, not even when laws change, which they do, or when bad laws get enacted, which also happens. The only thing is, many disagree about which is which....

 

[Aldebaran]

If you're saying the Patriot act was unconstitutional, I'd agree. But enacting unconstitutional laws, even those not rules as such by the SCOTUS, isn't an "assault" on the Constitution.

When people use language like that, talking of "assaulting the Constitution" and such, all it means is that they disagree with some change to it or amendment someone proposes for it. That's it.

No one's assaulting the Constitution.

-- A2SG, not even when laws change, which they do. Often....

Maybe assaulting our freedom would be a better way to say it. However, if the constitution is ignored in favor of a law or regulation that violates it, then the system is broken if nothing can be done to reverse it. As of late, the SCOTUS has proven it can override the constitution if it wants to. It may not "assault the constitution", but it can pretty much neuter it if it wanted to.

 

[A2SG]

Maybe assaulting our freedom would be a better way to say it.

Certainly a different way to say it, since it means something other than what you said before. Though, no less a matter of opinion, really. I'm sure those who supported the Patriot Act or similar legislation weren't driven by an evil desire to destroy freedom.

However, if the constitution is ignored in favor of a law or regulation that violates it, then the system is broken if nothing can be done to reverse it.

Hardly! Many laws are enacted that, either intentionally or not, violate the Constitution. That's why we have Judicial review.

As of late, the SCOTUS has proven it can override the constitution if it wants to.

Such as..? What specific cases are you referring to?

It may not "assault the constitution", but it can pretty much neuter it if it wanted to.

Please keep in mind that disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision does not mean the Constitution is neutered. It only means the SCOTUS ruled differently than you would have, were you appointed to the Court.

-- A2SG, legal issues, especially Constitutional ones, are rarely as simple or as cut and dry as many laymen believe them to be....

 

[HonestTruth]

It seems to me that the Republican Party might be on the decline long term if it doesn't begin to appeal to more moderate voters. With the Tea Party, now officially the most hated group in the United States ...

Note: I myself do not really associate with any particular political party, on many views I am rather liberal, but there are still issues on which I am rather conservative.

I don't see the Republicans in decline though I wish they were as it is anti-majoritarian and anti-constitution.


The top ten reasons not to vote Republican in the midterms



This Republican House has the least public mandate of any Congress in history. In the 2012 elections, the Republicans won 234 seats to the Democrats 201. But the Democrats won 48.8% of the popular vote, to the Republican’s 47.6%. The Democrat’s vote tally was nearly one-and-a-half-million higher. There is no precedent for this, not even close – never has the legitimate preference of the voters been so distorted.

If the Democrats had won – because they got the most votes – the Tea Party would be far less influential. There would have been no debt ceiling crisis, roiling markets and shaking consumer confidence, and no government shutdown lasting sixteen days.

With the Senate having passed a bi-partisan Immigration bill with more than two-thirds of the chamber voting yea, the house would, by now, have followed suit, with a final bill coming out of conference, bound for the president’s desk.





Republican gerrymandering, obstructionism, and contempt for the will of the majority are proof they are unworthy of holding office.

 

[kermit]

IMO, the idea that the GOP needs broaden it's appeal to more voters inherently misses the reason why their support is waning. Decades ago there used to be liberal Republicans, in the 90's there were moderate Republicans. Today there are only conservative Republicans. The only divide among these groups is if they are socially or fiscally conservative or both. It's starting to get to the point where one has to be both and someone is either socially or fiscally is being driven out. Before the GOP can broaden it's appeal, it's needs to stop narrowing what it means to be a Republican.

The GOP reminds me of churches that splits and splits again over minor doctrine disputes until there remains a "church" with a dozen members who are all related.

 

[Aldebaran]

IMO, the idea that the GOP needs broaden it's appeal to more voters inherently misses the reason why their support is waning. Decades ago there used to be liberal Republicans, in the 90's there were moderate Republicans. Today there are only conservative Republicans. The only divide among these groups is if they are socially or fiscally conservative or both. It's starting to get to the point where one has to be both and someone is either socially or fiscally is being driven out. Before the GOP can broaden it's appeal, it's needs to stop narrowing what it means to be a Republican.

The GOP reminds me of churches that splits and splits again over minor doctrine disputes until there remains a "church" with a dozen members who are all related.

Not really. It seems that the Republicans have only started leaning more and more left to please people, and THAT is what has hurt them. The only real conservatives now are the Tea Party members. That's why that group formed--because the Republicans keep dropping the ball on conservative issues.

 

[kermit]

Not really. It seems that the Republicans have only started leaning more and more left to please people, and THAT is what has hurt them. The only real conservatives now are the Tea Party members. That's why that group formed--because the Republicans keep dropping the ball on conservative issues.

I wonder if you realize that you completely supported my post. You claim that the only the Tea Party "real conservatives" which supports my claim that Republicans that are either socially or fiscally conservative are being driven out of the GOP by Republicans that are both (Tea Party).

I also note that that you completely ignore the complete absence of liberal and moderate Republicans which is a relatively recent development (3-4 decades) and correlates to the GOP decline in popular support.